Fri Aug 23 22:51:25 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Aug 23 22:51:25 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA10436; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:50:20 -0400
Message-Id: <199608240149.TAA03573@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "Dave Washburn" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:45:47 -7
Subject: Re: Collation
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 994

Jim West wrote:
> True enough, there are plenty of minor orthographic differences between
> virtually all manuscripts.  But the issue I am concerned with is; do
> scholars simply need to be told "they are there, so were are going to ignore
> them" or "here are the manuscripts, decide for yourself"?
> I think wide accessibility is a "necessity" for genuine scholarship to
> occur.  That was my only (poorly put, obviously) point.

I suspect it depends on the scholar.  Many, if not most, researchers 
who work with textual criticism at all do it as a secondary matter to 
exegesis; for those, things like itacisms and other orthographic 
matters are non-essentials.  Most of us on this list probably fall 
into a different category of researchers, ones who delve more deeply 
into TC and hence may need to know more about matters beyond the 
basic variants.  That was my (equally poorly put) point.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"Just reach out, and He'll reach in..."

Back